Writing Congressional Hearing Rebuttal vs Being Investigated at a Congressional Hearing

It’s one thing for book author / documentary movie star Naomi Oreskes to be tapped for quotations on the state of affairs in the global warming issue — last night’s appearance on the PBS NewsHour (2:49 point here), for example. It’s quite another problematic situation when she is tapped for work by Democrat politicians. Continue reading

Corroborated vs. Uncorroborated Claims

Back in 2008-’09, I was perplexed that efforts to mitigate runaway global warming were occurring despite detailed opposition offered by skeptic climate scientists. Before my initial searches to find out why skeptic assessments were being ignored, I was unaware of how widespread the accusations were about skeptic scientists being paid industry money to lie to the public. Afterward, rather than finding multiple corroborations revealing massively damaging evidence of when, where and how the skeptics were paid to lie, all I found was one uncorroborated source for the accusation. Continue reading

The Rex-Exxon Problem, or the inverse thereof

Spend even the briefest effort doing a combined internet search of the words “Exxon” and “climate change”, and it becomes abundantly obvious that enviro-activists have long believed Exxon is a fundamental threat to the planet (full archived text here), and now that Exxon’s CEO – who supposedly has overseen a climate denial machine (full text here) over the last decade – has been tapped by President-elect Trump to be Secretary of State, we should be terrified of him. But just a under two months ago, a situation arose which may indicate that this giant Rex-Exxon survival problem facing the planet could instead be a massive survival problem for enviro-activists. Continue reading

To be Credible, you must Keep Your Story Straight, Pt 2: “Oreskes’ timeline problem”

I’ll repeat with what I concluded in Part 1, but more succinctly: for an authoritative storyteller to mesmerize an audience, the story must never contain an element where the audience blurts out, “wait a minute, what you just said can’t be right,” otherwise whatever point there was to the story disappears at the exact same moment when the storyteller’s credibility implodes. Now, see how Harvard History of Science professor Naomi Oreskes’ inadvertently elicits that exact response from her audience, via her tale of the events which led her to explore the notion that skeptic climate scientists operate in a manner parallel to what ‘expert shills’ did for the tobacco industry. Continue reading

To be Credible, you must Keep Your Story Straight, Pt 1

My prior blog post detailed a particular set of ‘narrative derailment’ problems surrounding Naomi Oreskes, who was in the news a few weeks ago regarding her consultation with New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman about the “Exxon Knew” story before a climate news outlet broke out the story. That’s a troublesome situation. But her overall situation worsens through an apparent inability to keep her stories straight on what led her to discover skeptic climate scientists were ‘industry-corrupted.’ Today, part 1 on her being attacked by US Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). Continue reading

An Accusation Built on a Foundation of Sand

The collective enviro-activist movement wants the public to believe global warming science is settled and that opponents may be dismissed out-of-hand due to ‘extensive documentation’ of skeptic climate scientists’ industry corruption. I’ve already pointed out, here and here, how there is no independent corroboration for the accusation. Worse, the so-called smoking gun core evidence for the accusation, leaked memos attributed to the obscure Western Fuels Association’s 1991 “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE) public relations campaign are not what Naomi Oreskes, Al Gore, Ross Gelbspan and others say they are. Continue reading

Flipping Gore’s RICO-style Prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics

For new readers arriving at this blog, you probably already have a passing familiarity with the current news item about state-level Attorneys General efforts to prosecute “climate change deniers.” What you may not know is that, while this latest legal tactic is relatively new, the core accusation behind it is more than 20 years old. My article at American Thinker today will hopefully serve as a primer on that problem, and will hopefully also prompt many to go back through my blog here and my other online articles in order to see just how much more there is to this problem.

Those who push using RICO laws against “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” (‘other organizations’ meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they’ve never before encountered push-back on the very core of their accusation. But when increasing numbers of the public become aware of how NY state AG Schneiderman and Al Gore handed their heads on a silver platter two weeks ago to investigators, journalists, and wavering global warming believers, the more likely this entire witch hunt collapses.

Continue reading at American Thinker, “Gore’s RICO-style Prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics” ——->

The Repeaters vs the Pushers

I’ve said it many times, the entire global warming crisis can be boiled down to a three point mantra, “the science is settled” / “skeptics are industry-corrupted” / “everyone may ignore skeptic material because of points 1 & 2.” With the latest fixation on using racketeering laws to persecute companies and organization siding with skeptic climate scientists, a fourth talking point could be added, “when deniers persist with their industry-bought and orchestrated lies, they should be charged with crimes against humanity.” But the entire notion hinges on the insinuation that scientists who had even the most tenuous financial tie to industry donations were corrupted – paid to lie in a manner no different than shill ‘experts’ working for the tobacco industry who said smoking didn’t cause lung cancer. An insinuation so memorably compelling that ordinary citizen enviro-activists can regurgitate it with ease. Continue reading